Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

devonzuegel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 344 posts

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#291

Post by DrScump »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

>> It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

  If homeless people on buses are a problem where you live, that has nothing to do with public transport in general
It has everything to do with public transportation policy.

Example: VTA (Santa Clara County). They started allowing "homeless" to just hang out on a given long route bus all day, recirculating directions, so they could claim higher ridership. Of course, the real-world effect is that those people who would have used buses for legitimate transportation were displaced, and a death spiral of constantly falling legitimate ridership continues.

VTA's explanations (paraphrased):

2005-2008: "oh, so many more people are employed, they can afford to drive" (or, more realistic, they need prompt, reliable transportation).

2009-2012: "oh, so many people are out if work, they don't need buses to get to work"

2013+: GO TO 2005

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#292

Post by DrScump »

jacques_chester wrote: post #236
maxsilver wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. That would be nice, but that's not the general opinion of urbanists in the US. They (generalizing) really do believe as the parent describes, to "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit", and they truly believ…

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool. And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or mo…

  They solve air pollution
They displace air pollution to wherever the generation plant is, except for rare areas served by 100% nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/geothermal.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#293

Post by masonic »

egypturnash wrote: post #256
homonculus1 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them are addicts who don't want help. You could give them a job and a free house and they'd end up right back where they are now.

America continues to collect the wonderful, wonderful dividends of Ronald Reagan's decision to cut the funding for mental health to the bone.

Mental health funding was higher as Reagan left office than it was when he took office, both as CA Governor and as US President.

What changed was case law, as the court rulings made it much more difficult to keep mental patients in treatment against their will.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#294

Post by mrep »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #271
mrep wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My girlfriend experiences the same thing which is why she refuses to take public transportation without me. It is a huge problem that nobody here has claimed a solution for nor really talked about (not too surprising since HN is composed of 94.6% males according to [0]). Just google search "public transportation women" or use this link [1] to read into it more. It is one of the reasons we plan to move to suburbia onc…

Not doubting your experience at all, but my SO feels more comfortable on public transit than on an Uber/Lyft, where she feels like she has no control over what the driver chooses to do. She also avoids the last hour of transit.

She also tries to avoid taking Uber/Lyft but not too the extreme of public transportation.

We also got a car recently and this was one of the big reasons.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#295

Post by sobani »

zumu wrote: post #201
njarboe wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Need a kickstarter like system. Get 10,000 people to deposit $10,000 and you have got $100,000,000 to acquire a nice plot of land, set up planning and governance, and incorporate a new town. I'd be interested in seeing plans for such towns and would be interested in living in one. Or one billionaire with similar ambitions.

> Or one billionaire with similar ambitions. I was with you until this part. I'd rather not live in a city with an 'owner'.

A benevolent dictator does have its advantages. For example being able to determine a culture until it's proven and critical mass makes it unlikely to change. It's comparable to the eternal September problem.

Say some 'hippies' try to bootstrap a city that's very walkable and people flock to it because they want to live in such a city. But it takes a while to get used to a new situation and during that time it's very easy to say "I like to walk to the shops, but I'm used to doing my groceries once a week, so allow me to use my car for that." Before you know the 'short-sighted yuppies' overwhelm the 'stubborn hippies' and cars are allowed everywhere one exception at a time.

The biggest disadvantages of a dictator are overcome by being able to move easily and the city being part of the larger legal framework of the country it's in.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#296

Post by arethuza »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #192
epicureanideal wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. If this were stopped, then it might be better than being in a car.

>> As the GP said, there are people who are drunk, high, smelling of bodily fluids, etc. There are people who are rude, loud, etc. Excuse me, but- where does that happen? I mention in another comment that I live in a town in England, where I've never had any problems with homeless people in public transport. I also work in London, travel by rail across Europe and often use public transport in three different European…

I use public transport a lot (trains mostly, but the occasional bus) here in Scotland and I can't remember the last time I had anything unpleasant happen on public transport. And I've got a decent new car which I do use a fair amount but I'm perfectly happy taking the train or bus as well.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#297

Post by kruczek »

DrScump wrote: post #292
jacques_chester wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool. And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or mo…

They solve air pollution They displace air pollution to wherever the generation plant is, except for rare areas served by 100% nuclear/hydroelectric/solar/geothermal.

Note however that it is easier to limit and monitor air pollution generated by relatively few generation plants, than by hundreds of thousands of individual cars.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#298

Post by moltar »

scythe wrote: post #160
moltar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s possible and been done. See this doc for a good example of this happening in US: https://www.netflix.com/title/80145240

I think the Rajneesh movement is a pretty bad example of the kind of project the OP talks about. Among the ways it could be improved on, it would be nice to not destroy a town which was already there, to build a secular community without a cult leader, to avoid kidnapping and drugging homeless people, and to not poison hundreds of people in an attempt to interfere with an election. Oh, and maybe let people wear a col…

I didn’t say the overall project was good. Just a good example of someone achieving “building a new city” goal.

It was a solid initiative after all. It just went sideways afterwards.

I’ve watched the doc and further read about the events. I didn’t want to spoil the doc with details.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#299

Post by eeZah7Ux »

MR4D wrote: post #39
davidw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife is from a small town in Italy. It doesn't have transit, but it's quite possible to get around it on foot or by bike, because it's compact.

I think your point gets missed by many people. Europeans tend to have cities that have been around much longer than cars have, and you can see it in the design - they were built back when horses were the fastest mode of transportation. Many small American towns were built after the introduction of the automobile (or at least significant chucks of the towns were). Trying to undo history, or even taking a new mode of d…

No, that's not the reason. Most surface area of european cities is modern. Zoning laws have been created on purpose to make cities walkable.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#300

Post by eeZah7Ux »

pm90 wrote: post #101
joshuaheard wrote: post #55

Visiting the Leonardo Da Vinci museum, I saw an exhibit where Leonardo did an urban design plan. In it, he made the street level pedestrian only. Under the street was another level for horses and wagons (cars and busses today), where each building had an underground entrance to this level through an underground garage. This seems like an elegant solution in an urban area from the man who invented the helicopter, para…

Except that it would also be ridiculously expensive. If construction costs reduce in the future due to automation though, might be workable.

Le Corbusier proposed the very same idea and it's working very well in many asian cities.

It's actually cheaper than alternatives and no, you don't need digging.

Post reply on HN